2017 (12) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Whether the appellants have not given sufficient proof of excess payment of duties of excise for which refund claim has been filed - unjust enrichment - Unjust enrichment - Held that - Ld. Advocate submits that they are in a position to establish that the unjust enrichment does not stand attracted, in as much as, the payments were received by them from BSNL only in terms of revised final purchase order - Ld. Advocate however fairly agrees that the certificate of BSNL, now placed before us, was not before the Authorities below. As the issue relates to verification of the documents, which can only be done at the level of the Original Adjudicating Authority, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for examining the Appellate s claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellants have not given sufficient proof of excess payment of duties of excise for which refund claim has been filed.
2. Whether the refund of duty shall cause unjust enrichment to the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing transmission equipment, supplied products to public sector undertakings under preferential quota. The issue arose when excess duty payment of ?2,17,93,372/- was made due to the exemption of duty on customized software, resulting in a refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim citing lack of proof. The appellants argued they paid duties based on composite prices initially, later adjusted as per revised purchase orders showing hardware and software prices separately. They contended that the duty exemption on customized software justified the refund claim.

2. The authorities denied the refund invoking the principle of unjust enrichment, as the appellants failed to provide documents proving payments received in accordance with revised invoices. The appellants, however, asserted that payments were received based on final purchase orders. Although the BSNL certificate supporting this claim was not presented earlier, the appellants agreed on its absence. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation, considering the evidence and legal precedents cited by the appellants. The decision allowed the appeal for remand, ensuring the appellants an opportunity to present their case effectively.